It looks like my suspicion that Democratic voters are in no mood for ideological purity is correct.
The poll also asked registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents about their party’s nomination process. In considering who should be their party’s standard bearer, a majority of 56% prefer someone who would be a strong candidate against Trump even if they disagree with that candidate on most issues. Just 33% say they would prefer a nominee who they are aligned with on the issues even if that person would have a hard time beating Trump. Democratic women (61%) are more likely than men (45%) to say they would put their policy positions aside in order to get a nominee who could beat Trump.
“In prior elections, voters from both parties consistently prioritized shared values over electability when selecting a nominee. It looks like Democrats may be willing to flip that equation in 2020 because of their desire to defeat Trump. This is something to pay close attention to when primary voters really start tuning into the campaign,” said [Patrick] Murray, [the director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute].
This is why I don’t agree that some kind of ascendant socialism or millennial-driven enthusiasm will have an outsized role in determining the winner of the Democratic Party’s presidential nominating process. You might come to that conclusion if you spend a lot of time online looking at passionate blog-posts and infuriated tweets, but most Democratic voters are more concerned with winning than with finding a candidate who can check all of their boxes.
Obviously, this runs contrary to a lot of common wisdom which holds that the Democrats are moving sharply to the left and are desperate for confrontation and open resistance from their leaders. This is supposed to mirror the mood of the Republican electorate in the 2015-16 cycle. There are no doubt many similarities to be found between the two periods, but consider the standing of the Republican congressional leadership of John Boehner and Eric Cantor during Obama’s second term and compare it to Nancy Pelosi’s standing with rank-and-file Democrats today.
It’s important that, at least so far, Pelosi’s style of confrontation and resistance is seen as effective and laudable. Republicans saw Boehner and Cantor as completely ineffective.
That’s not to say that Democrats are thrilled with the performance of the Establishment as a whole, but they aren’t in open rebellion against their own leaders. They’re looking for a new leader who is broadly appealing and can’t be easily caricatured or beaten down. Where they stand on the left, right or center is of secondary importance to them in this cycle because losing isn’t an option.
This does not mean that Democrats are uninterested in ideology, nor that a centrist or moderate candidate will have some necessary advantage. All other things being equal, a moderate candidate will be at a disadvantage. However, a candidate who can successfully project broad non-ideological appeal will be most of the way toward making a winning argument. As I’ve long argued, with the right image and messaging, that candidate can be as progressive as they want to be. But if they are quite obviously alienating wide swaths of gettable voters with either their rhetoric or their policies, that’s going to hurt them badly with Democratic voters.
This election cycle is not going to reward ideological rigidity or radicalism. On the other hand, the winner could wind up being as far out of the historic mainstream as Trump. Anything is possible with the right kind of campaign.
It will be interesting to see how things shake out. They could nominate a rotting potato and I’d line up to vote for it over Trump, and I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels that way.
I feel you, but “rotten potato democrat” doesn’t roll off the tongue quite as well as “yellow dog democrat.”
Just sayin’. 🙂
Ideology is really pretty irrelevant, even the “centrist” or “moderate” Democrats are well to the left of the Senate/median senator.
If we are lucky and flip the Senate, median senator is someone like Jon Tester. My fave is whoever looks likely to get a lot of votes, and especially who looks likely to have coattails.
Translation of what you and others are saying:
Any Democrat that’s to the left of Trump and the GOP and can win is OK with me.
And anyone who thinks we need something better than that is an “ideological purist” I suppose.
Only so if you think there is any chance the nominee would be anywhere to the right of Amy Klobuchar. Me, I don’t think so.
That is a bullshit mischaracterization of what I said and you are offensively full of shit.
According to today’s spectrum both Eisenhower and LBJ were radical leftists.
I am sick of being called a purist because I still support the Voting Rights Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, NEPA, EPA, Civil Rights Act and various court decisions supporting a woman’s right to choose and the same schools for everyone. Let’s add progressive taxation, Medicare (why not for all?) and Social Security. The GI bill transformed this country. I support a modern equivalent to improve educational opportunity.
You write:
Not quite true, Heart.
Truly “radical” leftists do not wage imperialist wars on innocent countries. The body count from post-WWII U.S. wars…large and small, overt and covert…is astounding!!!
It would be even more astounding if the true body count…including lives and families destroyed…were to be known.
The almost universal hatred for the United States that percolates throughout the less developed world stems from these many wars.
Bet on it.
Maybe Eisenhower was simply powerless to stop them. He certainly had seen enough war…up close and personal…to know the costs in human lives as well as in U.S. international standing. It certainly sounds that way in his farewell address.
LBJ?
Not so much…
He was more like the rich, land-grabbing villain who appeared in so many American western movies and TV shows. He’d do whatever was necessary to expand his holdings with no regrets whatsoever.
Bet on that as well.
Later…
AG
You’re beating a strawman. Even “centrists” Dems support “Voting Rights Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, NEPA, EPA, Civil Rights Act and various court decisions supporting a woman’s right to choose and the same schools for everyone.” There are a very few who will oppose one or two of those, like Lipinski, but not many. Most of the Dem presidential candidates support every one of those issues.
Nobody gets called a “purity pony” for supporting that set of issues.
Purity pony is a term dedicated to people who campaign against Democratic politicians and accomplishments when the only alternative is Republican politicians and no accomplishments. Those who campaigned for Trump after Clinton beat Sanders in the primary. Those who campaigned against the ACA after Lieberman knifed the public option. People who act as the enemy of progressive change as a narcissistic act of leftier-than-thou virtue signaling.
I don’t know anyone who campaigned for Trump after Clinton beat Sanders, and I live in as pro-Sanders an area as you can imagine.
They were extremely vocal online.
The only one I’ve met in real life is a kind of weirdo libertarian type, not a purity pony leftist.
That’s not equivalent to campaigning for Trump.
What’s not equivalent to campaigning against Trump?
People commenting online.
I mean, they were campaigning for Trump, online. Are you drawing a distinction between campaigning on the internet and campaigning door-to-door? Maybe I’m not understanding what you’re trying to say.
OK. Then how do “centrists” differ from liberal Democrats? I want some specifics. please.
The only centrist Democrats I know in real life are my parents. Massachusetts technocratic liberals who love Elizabeth Warren as senator but think she’s to “divisive” as a presidential candidate. Preferred Clinton over Sanders because they saw Clinton as a capable potential president and Sanders as a gadfly. Civil servants who have seen both parties fuck up state government at different times in different ways (I repeat technocratic). Social policy positions can be defined as “human rights are universal and Republican positions are evil.” Economic policy positions almost always can be defined as “more to the left of anything the Republicans want but no not that much.”
As far as I can tell from polling people like my parents are not a significant portion of the electorate outside of New England.
And to add to this, the actual moderate Democrats that DO seem to exist in large numbers based on polling are essentially the exact opposite of my parents. Economic policy as “freedom from want is universal and Republican positions are evil”. Social policy as “more to the left of white supremacy but no not that much”.
I think there are also several aspects which are not being addressed in these “prognostications”.
Will the D candidate make some gaffes, that will then be hammered by the right wing noise machine, aided by their friends in Moscow? I am not sure how much, but HRC’s “deplorables” comment breathed some wind into DJT’s sails.
Is “charisma” going to be an important factor? I had not thought so, but the 2016 election (and much earlier ones) makes me rethink that people look for “aspirational” candidates, rather than factually accurate but somewhat staid characters. (AOC is a good example of that)
That reading of the poll presumes only a centrist candidate is electable. It also doesn’t say what the ideological preferences of the respondents are. Could be that even if they don’t support [insert centrist idea here] they will still support the candidate. The Democrats would be foolish to put forward another centrist candidate and expect to win.
Meant to say [insert progressive / socialist idea here]
The phrase, “ideological purity”, has been weaponized against progressives since the 2016 presidential primary.
I am left to wonder why establishment centrists keep using this phrase, when it has only served to alienate a growing swath of the electorate the Democrats will need to succeed.
I believe the reason for that is many of the leading democrats have become comfortable with losing national elections. As long as they keep their seats and all the benefits that go with them; and all the guarantees that accrue to them when they don’t, as a reward for doing the bidding of donors who’ll make sure there’s a rewarding role on the other side of the revolving door. They can afford to run “centrist” campaigns that they know are only popular with the donor class they’re beholden too. In this scenario, “fighting for you” is just part of the con they really don’t need to concern themselves with beyond the rhetoric.
I would probably vote for even a conservative retard over Trump, anything but that sleazy bad of shite with the orange tint.
When has ideological purity ever been a winning strategy for the Dem nomination?
1972.
Worked smashingly well in November that year.
Cautionary tale. Don’t do that again.
Amazes me how centrists still have the balls to squeal about McGovern after we all watched Hillary’s electoral belly-flop just a few years ago. I mean, hello? Just because it happened when the precious Boomers were young doesn’t mean the dynamics of America will never, ever change.
After 2016 centrists have no credibility talking about “electability”. Their strategy of pursuing moderate suburban Republican voters while ignoring everyone else is the only play they’ve got. They will fight against policy like M4A with everything they have, just like they’ve been doing for decades.
Meanwhile, your whole premise here is basically that the dynamics of the Dems “will never, ever change” (i.e., “centrists” blah blah blah), when the actual available evidence shouts very loudly that they already have shifted very significantly, and continue to do so. But acknowledging that Reality would mean questioning your chosen, entrenched, biased narrative . . . and we couldn’t have that, now, could we?
But, yeah, you just keep blathering on, at and about “centrists”. It’ll reliably get you uprates from ag, so I guess there’s that.
(To be clear: “centrist” is a mostly useless term because in practice it means little beyond “what I don’t like”. The Democratic Party as a whole has shifted very significantly to the “left” — though that term’s usefulness for clear communication, like most that people deliberately misuse for propaganda purposes, is also greatly compromised. But it’s not credibly arguable that the median Dem voter isn’t quite far to “the left” of the median Dem voter of a decade or two ago. Gratuitously contentious argumentation that betrays no awareness of this is self-discrediting.)
I’m one of those precious boomers who was a McGovern campaign volunteer as a high-school student back in 1972. I canvassed my conservative little southern California town during the run-up to the primary. I had people screaming abuse at me and telling me that by gawd they were going to vote for George Wallace. My old beater car was repeatedly defaced and the McGovern bumper stickers were torn off.
Perhaps in his rush to condemn “establishment” Democrats, RiverboatGrambler has forgotten that McGovern was abandoned by working-class Democrats and organized labor. George McGovern, decorated WW2 combat veteran, was abandoned by people who supposedly put a great deal of stock in the honorable nature of military service. He was abandoned by people who would have been direct beneficiaries of McGovern’s domestic policy agenda.
Wow! Setting aside that a single data point (47 years ago) does not define a trend, 1972 was an extremely chaotic year.
It simply not the case that Democrats voted to elect the most ideologically pure candidate. McGovern won 25% of the popular vote, coming in second to Hubert Humphrey and barely beating out segregationist George Wallace, who got 23%.
Nixon’s Southern strategy was perfectly timed to take advantage of Wallace’s disenchanted voters.
The phrase, “ideological purity”, has been weaponized against progressives since the 2016 presidential primary, if not longer.
I am left to wonder why establishment centrists keep using this phrase, when it has only served to alienate a growing swath of the electorate the Democrats will need to succeed.
They’re not interested in those voters. They’re interested in suburban NeverTrumpers (socially moderate, fiscally conservative) who will help pull the D party further to the right.
“Ideological purity” = concrete material benefits for the working class. They don’t want them. That’s why the only things centrists have to say about M4A is how “concerned” they are for all the people who will lose their jobs working for literal death panels, and/or how well-off people with good insurance might be inconvenienced and THAT will make us lose the election oh no!
The Dems are not interested in expanding their voting base, unless it’s expanding into the conservative side.
. . . fitting your descriptions here, please.
. . . centrists”. Then identify some examples who “keep using this phrase”.
Thanks.
You’re looking at the wrong variable, Martin. People are starved for authenticity. Not just Democrats; Republicans too. That’s what got Trump elected. People were willing to give him a pass on everything, even being a con man, because he seemed at least an authentic con man.
Our party would be foolish to choose a candidate who has aligned with and been beholden to big money in the past, even if he or she claims to have seen the light. Authenticity is the contemporary rocket fuel of politics.
Trump is such a weak candidate that almost anyone should have a chance. But if we want a wave election, the kind you’ve so correctly asserted we need, the quality of the candidate is very important.
Yes! I love that you are adding this to the discussion. Human beings trust the “stand up” person, who lives and embodies their ideals.
Four years before electing Trump, Republican voters elected Mitt Romney to be their standard-bearer. Please tell me about Romney’s “authenticity”. The most powerful Republican between Mitt and Donald was Paul Ryan; I’d like to know more about his “authenticity” as well.
Also, the framing of your comment suggests that Donald wasn’t beholden to big money in the past. Why didn’t America’s “authenticity”-craving Republican voters reject Donald, a man clearly beholden to wealthy, foreign interests?
Trump is such a weak candidate that almost anyone should have a chance. But if we want a wave election, the kind you’ve so correctly asserted we need, the quality of the candidate is very important.
America is so ideologically polarized that an election wave seems like a pipe dream: Obama’s 2008 margin will probably be the high water mark for the next 25 years at least (Obama won Indiana!) Once a candidate reaches the nomination, they have a fairly good chance of being elected President, thanks to the EC. The quality of the candidate is important within the nomination race but shouldn’t really be a factor in the general election.
“Americans prefer winners” has been true for probably as long as they have been taking polls- And in the past, that’s also been the primary vector that the media has used to put it’s thumb on the scale by pre-deciding which candidates are the “serious” ones or the most “electable”. Or even which ones “people would like to have beer with”. At this point, it’s all b.s. and I would be extremely skeptical of any candidate that the media started pushing as a front-runner in the Democratic primary. It’s way too early, and the millionaire pundits (and the corporations that employ them) have an agenda that is not necessarily inline with what might actually get a Democrat elected president.
I do think that the Democratic party has gotten the message that electoral reform and healthcare are issues that they are going to actually have to deliver on if they take the presidency, so regardless I expect solid, enlightened debate on those topics during the primary process that might have a real impact on voters.
What I’m actually most afraid of is the Trump realty show controversy of the day will continue to dominate coverage and drown out everything else. i.e the name calling, blatant lies, insider gossip, spats with foreign leaders, pending indictments, etc… because that’s what Trump proved they care the most about because that’s what gets them the most eyeballs. I’m not sure any of the candidates yet has figured out how to deal with that nightmare yet. So far, I think Nancy Pelosi has probably been the most effective Democrat in dealing with Trump’s reality T.V. tantrums, without getting sucked into the swamp- but it is going to be an extremely difficult challenge for the party to deal with if Trump ends up being their opponent (50/50 in my opinion at this point).
The one that can take control of the media cycle from Trump is the winner.
“In considering who should be their party’s standard bearer, a majority of 56% prefer someone who would be a strong candidate against Trump even if they disagree with that candidate on most issues.”
This reminds me of a post you had about two weeks ago. OK, whatever this polling means at this premature point. However, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Democrats are absolutely, totally sick of Trump and the GOP, I understand this because I’m right there in the mainstream. I am so fucking sick of the stupid asshole that I can hardly express it.
What this poll really means? Rank and file Democrats are saying, give us a Democrat, ANY Democrat would be better than Trump. And they are also afraid that Trump would be hard to beat, so change that to “give me any Democrat, and the more soundly they can beat Trump the better.”
Second point — they don’t want “ideological purity.” I think that is a deliberately false framing, and it is coming from the “radical centrists,” who are (as Krugman pointed out in a really important op-ed the other day), probably the most ideological of all.
Tell me the idea that private enterprise is always and under all conditions superior to government is not a pure ideology. Tell me that lower taxes solves all problems is not a pure ideology.
Why is “ideologically pure” a false framing? Because this country, and this world, are facing some cosmically serious problems, and these problems HAVE to be dealt with meaningfully, and soon, or we’re all fucked. The way to deal with them is not through any kind of “ideological purity”, but through intelligence, wisdom, superlative leadership and something resembling a sense of national unity. And through returning to the healthy mix of public and private that made America work.
The term “ideological purity” is a red herring. First of all — what ideology are we talking about? And second of all, if we move on to the supposedly desired concept of ideological IM-purity, there is no limit to the number of possible combinations.
Which means that the statement does not mean what it appears to mean. In fact, when you look closely, it doesn’t really mean anything. It’s just a dog whistle courtesy of the “radical centrists,” and the correct translation is, “Let’s promote this meme where people like Elizabeth Warren, (who is by no means an ideological fanatic but would have been considered a committed, normal Democrat a few decades ago), is considered a fanatical leftist. They are scared to death of Warren, because her main cause is simply putting the interests of the middle and working class first, which many in the Democratic Party would have you believe is a distillation of the doctrines of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.
But … but … survey SAYS. Well who wrote the survey? Who framed it in this way? Bear in mind the two points I made above and I think you will see that this functions as a kind of push poll. Unfortunately, if we keep echoing memes like this, we will only help its originators achieve the desired effect.
Now, as to “electability”. “Better than Trump” is a very low bar indeed, nowhere near what is called for at this point in history. We need a president and a government that can meet the unprecedented challenges we are facing. And furthermore, I believe that many, many Democrats could beat Trump. In short, the issue of “ideological purity” is a red herring and a total distortion of the choices potentially available to Democratic voters.
. . . tha’d be the whole thing, with this relatively minor exception:
Who, exactly (names named!) are these “many”?
Not suggesting there are NONE, but it’s my impression that most Dems (though obviously not all) — even if they thought that! — have read the writing on the wall and would avoid taking such a position, at least openly.
A Democratic president might run foreign policy in a way that I don’t approve of.
But outside of that what is a Democratic president going to do that the rest of the elected Democratic representatives don’t approve of?
Would a Democratic president really veto something that the Democratic House and Senate sends him or her? Or conversely can a super progressive Democratic president make congress do anything that it isn’t inclined to?
So this means that the majority of centrist and center-right Dems will back a progressive candidate as the strongest standard bearer against Trump, right?
. . .
Taking this into account, seems most likely Dem voters will, in practice, tend to think their preferred candidate also has the best chance of defeating Trump, and vote accordingly in the primaries. Which is as it should be! Excessive “gaming out” can be self-defeating.
Not entirely sure I’m following you. If I favored Sherrod Brown, say–that’s in fact correct–but there were strong indications that Kamala Harris (for example) would be a better candidate and have bigger coat-tails, I’d say sorry, Sen. Brown, I’m voting for Sen. Harris. I would be unlikely to be influenced, however, by the argument that Brown would be most valuable holding an Ohio Senate seat. Arguments like that are what we get from Sunday talk show hosts and partisans for competing candidates trying to cull the competition.
. . . “strong indications” — as distinct from somebody’s tenuous opinion/hunch/gut feeling. Polls are really the only thing that come to mind. And though they’re not nuthin’, see “margin of error”, within which the relatively small differences in support that we’re discussing would generally fall. So this argument comes down to “go against your own values/preferences in hope of gaining some putative tactical advantage that might be completely ephemeral to non-existent.” To me personally, anyway, not remotely persuasive. Feels like giving up way too much for way too little in the way of assurance in return. If there were some guarantee that your hypothetical were true, that would at least be somewhat more persuasive, though I’m still not sure it would be decisive for me. But of course there are no such guarantees. My theory of primaries is: go with the one you really think is best on the merits. Then support whomever the party nominates in the general.
And yes, of course, true that
. . . which is probably fully sufficient to explain my antipathy to all the above. A lot of pretending to know the unknowable.
Two things I’m fairly sure of (and was before reading this): The nominee will not be Bernie Sanders. The nominee will not be Elizabeth Warren.
Don’t be so sure regarding Warren.
No Warren + no Sanders on the ticket = Trump re-election.
I’m already getting nothing from Trump’s government, why would I support a corporatist Democrat who will also do nothing for me?
The Party establishment is playing with fire. The right is coming for them (witness Pizzagate and other conspiracies), yet they keep alienating their allies on the left.
I hope you are right. Those are the only two who could reelect Dennison.
There’s some of a force mutually exclusivity here. How do we even define ideological purity and how do we define electability?
Tammy Baldwin is arguably one of the most progressive elected politicians in the country, and I think she’d do very well. I think the same of Sherrod Brown. They have cross-coalition appeal for independents, they win moderate white voters in their respective states, and they appeal to the whole Democratic coalition rather than just white liberals. They would be the most electorally viable candidates if you want to run up the score. Can Dems win their senate seats? We have history of doing it in Wisconsin, but Ohio is a steep climb.
Anyway, this also sounds like Gillibrand’s music. We’ll see how Biden does if he actually runs.
I’m not even sure I know what ideological purity would look like in this electoral cycle. We have some idea of what many of these candidates are about, at least as far as voting records and so on. We really won’t know more until they are put to the test as the primary season truly gets underway. I am preferring to hold off on supporting much of anyone until I see how they handle debates, oppo research (which will undoubtedly be brutal), and so on. My take, and I could be wrong, is that this cycle has the makings of not so much being a “change” election as a reset election. A minority of voters and a majority of electors managed to give us “change” of a sort. The results were and are predictably awful. Sanity seems to be the name of the game…there will be so much damage to undo once the Individual-1 era ends, and that will require competence. As a voter, that will require a good deal of pragmatism (as was the case in 2016).
>>How do we even define ideological purity and how do we define electability?
that’s the question that makes this whole article meaningless because booman makes no attempt to define terms.
and as mentioned above, “ideological purity” is a phrase nearly always used as an insult.
. . . ill-/undefined, and often-abused-for-propaganda-purposes buzzwords are unproductive, and can well be counter-productive.
Excellent point. Asking the question begs the answer.
“Do you prefer ideological purity or electability?”
Of course everyone wants their candidate to win the presidency (and by definition is electable) the question doesn’t include the concept that one could be both ideological and electable.
Nobody asks this question of Republicans because they rejected the premise decades ago.
In psychological/performance/leadership consulting based on NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming), the core technique is pacing and leading. It seems that Republicans do this very well routinely, in a balanced way. Whereas the Democrats are either pace without any leading (by chasing electability, poll approval), or strongly lead without much pacing (as with intersectional social justice).
Electable = John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton
Idealist = Howard Dean, Bernie
Unelectable bc skin color = Obama
These were the CW determinations during primary season for the 2004, 2008 and 2016 primaries. How did that work out?
Also, what a topic to invite a completely predictable flame session! Amorphous references to `electability’ and `centrism’. It’s like, “hey kids, here’s some gasoline, firecrackers and matches…. but, be careful, alright?”
I’m going to make a suggestion: if you hear anyone running for the Democratic presidential nomination attack a competitor for having “unrealistic” policy proposals, cross off your list of acceptable candidates the person making the attack.
Electability is a meaningless term, so I’ll skip that, but Ideological Purity? Is this even a demand anyone is making? Have the Democrats ever nominated any candidate based on “ideological purity”?
Let’s see.
Clinton: the definition of establishment candidate and was considered the “electable” choice in 2008 and 2016.
Obama: was constantly looking for ways to reach across the aisle.
Kerry: famous for voting for the $87 billion to fund the Iraq war, before voting against it because it increased the deficit.
Gore: “Parental Advisories” were his wife’s idea. Picked Joe Lieberman to be his running mate.
Clinton: Ended welfare as we know it.
Dukakis: “tank” is the first word suggested when you type his name in a Google search.
Mondale: ran on reducing the deficit, but named Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate…
Carter: “CARTER DEFENDS ALL WHITE AREAS” was an actual headline in the Times in 1976.
So….. McGovern? 1972. That’s the closest I can get to an ideologically pure Democratic candidate.
Why are we talking about this again?
I’m not sure what question this article is even addressing. What would “ideological purity” even mean for the Democratic party, which is inherently diverse in the current era.
I prefer not to hear as much about “American Indian” and “DNA” as I heard about “Emailz” and “Clinton Foundation.” This is bad:
At the Post, complete with a picture of the card.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-for-calling-herself-native-ameri
can/2019/02/05/1627df76-2962-11e9-984d-9b8fba003e81_story.html?utm_term=.2178b003b7d8
Why is this bad? The only one I’ve heard complain about her heritage is Trump. She was told she has native American ancestry, and she apparently does have some native American DNA.